You know very well that depleted uranium rounds are neither nuclear weapons nor dirty bombs and claiming so only creates confusion.
The US' military usage of DU (not just in ammunition but also armor) has been controversial and you're free to critique it, but that's not what you're doing.
Instead you lied and created these fictional "nuclear weapons" that the US is supposedly spreading everywhere, which is just not true.
> takes a very special person to link to an Iran backed "news"
Of course, there's no propaganda in
the West, and anyone who doesn't tow that line has to be a special person and totally desperate, yeah? On trigger to make a racial/personal attack (despite the fact that I called out that the claims are unverified).
Japan's national security policy is hypocritical given that it relies solely on the US nuclear umbrella for security despite disavowing anything to do with nuclear weapons, but unfortunately reality is not ideality.
Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal.
So yes, Japan is absolutely hypocritical and the Nobel Peace Prize has been the most vapid of all the Nobel Prizes, but for once this Peace Prize is actually trying to say something meaningful in an ever violent human world.
> Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal.
That's silly. Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. Ukraine had nuclear weapons on their soil, but they were managed, and controlled by forces loyal to Moscow. Had forces loyal to Kyiv tried to force their way into the silos they would have been repelled and a war would have broken out there and then.
Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal as much as Turkey has a nuclear arsenal because the USA stores nuclear warheads in Incirlik.
I agree that Ukraine was not a nuclear power even while they had warheads on their territory after the USSR fell apart, but I believe it was very feasible for them to become one.
Posession is nine tenths of the law, after all-- it would've been quite possible to just lock down a few silos and refuse to hand the weapons over. Russia as a state was highly disrupted at that point, and would've had a hard time opposing this effectively.
I'm not disputing that this would've been a very costly move for an already poor nation (in potential economical sanctions and also maintenance of the arsenal itself). Maybe the external political/economical pressure resulting from this would've ripped Ukraine apart some other way.
But I'm highly confident that Russia would not have risked annexing territory from an country with a few nuclear ICBM silos. No need even to have full control/launch capability, as long as there is sufficient doubt (on Russias side).
As a matter of fact Japan has no other choice than being under US protection.
I can't imagine a chain of event that would lead the US to get out of Japan volunteerly [0], nor Japan being able to kick the US out forcibly. It's just outside of the realm of possibility right now.
[0] they won't even move out of Okinawa as the whole island loathes the US base and gives the middle finger to their own gov to get them out.
